Skip to comments.US Relinquishes Control of Internet
Posted on 10/02/2009 6:51:07 PM PDT by NorwegianViking
After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system. Icann the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government. The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe. Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together. But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet. Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control. "It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "...He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
—————I would like to know what Washington is giving up. ——————
Get with the program bub!
What we are gaining is: Chinese communist, Canadian and European socialist speech restrictions. Not to mention the speech restrictions of our Muslim brothern in the world.
This is going to be TERRIBLE for freedom but right up the “Progressive’s” ally.
Would you be more specific?
What are the ramifications of this?
Paragraphs are your friend.....
jeez why dont we give away our first born
While the Internet should never be under the control of ANY loser government(s), free speech was probably LEAST threatened when it was under US control. Now, the political floodgates are OPENED!
All your innernets are belong to us.
The libs are working on that
What, exactly, is the upside of this appararently idiotic decision? Were the US taxpayers handsomely reimbursed for developing this innovation? Will America benefit in any substantial way from this change? Why was it done with virtually no fanfare or public input. If not we, the people who funded the development of the internet, then exactly who benefits and why?
Good Grief...don’t give them any ideas.
Why not? Democrat presidunces have pissed away everything else that was good and important. Panama Canal, Iran, great society, now health care and the internet.
The inventor (Algore) is going to be pi$$ed.
A far more intelligent solution is for an international conglomerate to form a true alternative to the Internet, that works exclusively by uncensored satellite transceivers. Up links and down links would be carefully controlled so that no government involvement is permitted.
Likely it would piggyback on the Internet as well, but as a means to leech, not upload. This means that the non-data window dressing of the system can be handled by the Internet, with only the restricted information being handled by the satellites.
For example, every part of the Free Republic that was not text would be transmitted on the Internet, and the Satellite would do only the text, and your computer would put the two together.
So all any snoop would see would be the blank FR home page, unless they could tap in to and decrypt the encrypted satellite down link.
As a controlled system, there would be no advertisement or spam, hacking, censorship or surveillance.
Since most of the Internet is “ordinary”, that is where users would spend most of their time. But any time they wanted to discuss sensitive things that others would interfere with, they activate the down link.
And did our fawning MSM finally cover themselves with glory just this once by reporting on this story? Methinks they knew about this and liked it, because it may offer a way to stifle the free flow of information as it has evolved these last few years.
But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.
Welcome to the Balkanization of the Internet. Where freedom is never a good thing, capitalism sucks, and tinpot dictators are given the same voice as freedom-loving democracies.
Sorry, I will try to be more careful. I do not post very often and I thought the paragraphs in the original news article would carry through here. I’ll be sure to double check.
Why? Let them build their own internet.
It is ANOTHER surrender of American dominance and de facto sovereignty to the Muzzie third world. THANKS, Hussein Obama.
No problem. The title of the article and no paragraphs made the post look like zot material.
It is an ill wind that blows no one any good. If the US doesn’t have control, they can’t shut it down. It makes it much less likely that any one country can shut it down.
OUCH!!! I just hate it when that happens and it has been happening all too many times lately! Thanks for the graphic.
controling the internet was very “arrogant” of us. I’m sure the UN will do a much better job than ICAAN has. /s
The greatest tool ever invented that allows, at least in any meaningful way, average Americans to really exercise their free speech rights has just been handed over to the tyrants and thugs at the UN.
This has the potential to affect US trademarks. That’s a big deal.
It won’t hurt multi-national conglomerates, but it may hurt Us mid size and small businesses who don’t have the same global business structure or legal resources at their disposal.
surrender in all quarters.
How is it that something created by the US Department of Defense can succumb to foreign control.
BHO is POS.
To which I'd add: The internet has been damaging the established state-run media organs... can't have that. It fosters freedom, too - totally unacceptable. You can see why some foreign governments (and now, sadly, ours too) want to choke it into submission.
A number of people here were recently discussing a revival of a dial-up BBS network. I'd say this just adds to the reasons why an alternate communications network is a serious need - and probably more urgent than we think.
Carter gave away the Panama Canal, now completely controlled by....China.
Hussein gives away control of the internet. Care to guess what open minded advocates of free speech will be running the show in 10 years?
Truthfully, I don’t think the US will exist as a genuine sovereign nation in 10 years, anyway. On paper, yes. In reality, no.
Remember, the USSR had a nice looking Constitution, too....on paper.
This article is two days old and from the UK. It’s strange that this is receiving no coverage in the US, apparently no mention on talk radio, or even the main internet sites, AFAIK. Nations already block sites and put restrictions on the internet. Though some Americans would doubtless love to see it, I can’t imagine Americans allowing our free speech on the internet to be diluted or determined by an international body.
This move has been discussed before, and received some spotty coverage in the past. I don’t think many know just what this means.
I thought twice about posting this simply because I had not seen or heard about it either. I saw it on Drudge tonight and was very curious, so I clicked on the “Guardian UK” site. I listen to FOX almost constantly, so I would not know how the “fringe” media is reporting it, but tonight was the first that I saw of the report. Has anyone else heard or seen anything else?
has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system
So? why would that be a problem? They have to connect with the rest, or else have their own limited networks. They can have their own limited networks, all they want, anyways... Let 'em.
If that became a problem,
Fork 'em right back, faster and harder...
And here comes the censorship. :)
Oh wait, I mean here comes the “civility” in debate. It’s a lot different than censorship - you just won’t be allowed to say certain things whereas under censorship you aren’t allowed to say certain things.
Can obumber do this on his own without the congress?_____________________
The evil one will go as far as he’s allowed.
I’m not the voice of authority on this- let me make that clear. I’m stating this based upon what I’ve read and some small personal knowledge. Do your own research.
The larger issue that I see is the problem of “international law” and regulations which hurt the US and US companies, trademarks and patents. The big money is now in “emerging” markets like China, India and other countries with little or no regulation, etc. Virtual slave labour. It’s greed like it’s always been, except now the US in on the short end of the stick. Just an opinion.
Here are a few links for you:
Go to Google news and type ICANN in the search box. Hundreds of articles.
The Death of the Internet.
Censorship, here we come.
But 0bummer is pro-censorship. See Office of Diversity.
I am amazed at the shortsightedness of the decision makers. Horrible. Giving control of the UN to fruitcakes in grass-skirts was apparently not enough of a sign that it would be a really bad idea to relinquish control of a major asset/resource to these same people. The ability of the internet to spread the idea of freedom will be hampered by this decision.